Interhospital variation of inpatient versus outpatient pediatric burn treatment after emergency department evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Approaches to burn care in the pediatric population are highly variable and can be targeted as a potential measure in cost-reduction. We hypothesized that institutions vary significantly in treatment allocation of nonsevere burns to either inpatient or outpatient care. METHODS: We queried the PHIS database for fiscal year 2017 to quantify small pediatric burn admissions and Emergency Department visits (ED). The ICD-10 code T31.0 was used to identify burns involving <10% of total body surface area (TBSA). Centers were categorized by burn center status and length of stay, readmissions, and charges were compared. RESULTS: Inpatient versus outpatient management distribution was significantly different across the included pediatric children's hospitals (n = 34, p < 0.00001). When data were analyzed with respect to outpatient care, a bimodal distribution distinguished two groups: high hospital utilizers with an average of 30% outpatient burn care and low-utilizers averaging 87%. Median inpatient charge per patient was greater than 31-fold compared to ED burn management (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Variability of inpatient versus outpatient pediatric burn management in small burns was significant. Compared to outpatient burn care, inpatient care is significantly more costly. Implementing protocols and personnel to provide adequate attention to small burns in the ED could be an important cost-saving measure. TYPE OF STUDY: Retrospective analysis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Expert Outpatient Burn Care in the Home Through Mobile Health Technology.

Access to care for pediatric burns remsains a major public health problem in the United States. Telemedicine has an opportunity to improve access to care, but current models are expensive and inefficient. They have developed and pilot-tested the TeleBurn App, a novel smartphone application, to treat partial thickness burns while outpatient. The app allows the provision of expert clinical burn care directly in the patient's home through text and image messaging, video conferencing, and instructional videos. They retrospectively reviewed clinical outcomes and usability in pediatric partial thickness burn patients treated using the TeleBurn App compared with standard therapy alone. Standard therapy is considered to be face-to-face delivery of care. Burn wound care was provided to 32 patients via the app and 35 patients with standard therapy. Most (74%) patients offered the app, used it as their primary source of follow-up care. This group had no wound infections or unexpected returns to clinic or hospital. Both TeleBurn App and standard therapy groups had similar burn severity, age, and burn mechanism. Mean healing time was shorter in the app group (mean ± standard deviation: 11.6 ± 4.7 days versus standard therapy: 14.3 ± 5.4 [P = .03]) with fewer clinical encounters (0.93 ± 0.6 vs standard therapy: 3.3 ± 1.0 [P = .001]). Adherence with completion of therapy in patients using the app was 80 vs 64 per cent with standard therapy. They describe a functional, scalable mobile health application in clinical use in a pediatric burn program. Further prospective, randomized studies may validate this mobile health platform, improving access to expert burn care for a vulnerable population.